Faith on Trial on Iowa Catholic Radio, 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM and on IowaCatholicRadio.com, examines the influence of law and society on Christianity and people of faith. "Like" us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Sunday, March 30, 2014

This week on Faith on Trial Erin Mersino, senior trial
counsel for the Thomas More Law Center, who was in the courtroom when the
Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the HHS Mandate by Hobby Lobby and
Conestoga Wood Specialties, will give us her impression of how the case was
argued and what might be the eventual outcome.

Erin has filed 11 federal lawsuits challenging the HHS
Mandate and won only the second injunction against its enforcement.She also had submitted an amicus brief to the
court on behalf of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga.Erin, who is a frequent guest on our program, recently won the “Defender
of the Faith” award by Legatus, the nation’s largest organization of top
Catholic business owners. She also represented Fr. Ray Leonard, a contract Navy
Chaplain who the government banned from saying Mass during the recent
government shut-down and threatened with arrest if he volunteered to celebrate
Mass or enter the chapel.

Join Deacon Mike Manno and Gina Noll as they interview
Erin about what she saw and heard during the Supreme Court arguments.Tuesday at 9 & 9 (CDT) on 1150 AM; 88.5
& 94.5 FM and streaming live on IowaCatholicRadio.com.

Friday, March 28, 2014

The Cardinal Newman Society, joined by several faithful Catholic
colleges, today made a strong plea to the National Labor Relations Board
(NLRB), urging it to abide by the U.S. Constitution and stop interfering with
religious education.

The signers intervened in a possible landmark case involving
Pacific Lutheran University, which a regional NLRB director found to be
insufficiently religious to be exempt from NLRB oversight of employee
relations, despite the University’s clear ties to the Evangelical Lutheran
Church of America and prior federal rulings against NLRB harassment of
religious colleges.

Although the case involves a Lutheran university, The Cardinal
Newman Society has documented decades of NLRB violations of religious freedoms that
affected Catholic colleges and universities. Four Catholic
institutions—Duquesne University, Manhattan College, Saint Xavier University
and Seattle University—are currently opposing NLRB jurisdiction over their
employee negotiations, and the Pacific Lutheran case could signal whether
religious colleges will have to sue the NLRB in federal court to defend their
constitutional rights.

The amicus brief was authored by expert attorneys from the
Alliance Defending Freedom: “Religious organizations have the right of autonomy
over their internal governance, the right to be treated the same as all other
religious groups and denominations by the government, and the right to be free
from government meddling and intrusion in their operations and beliefs,” the
attorneys write.

But they note that the NLRB regional director asserted
jurisdiction over Pacific Lutheran based on an intrusive investigation and a
conclusion that the University “was simply not religious enough to qualify” for
exemption from oversight. “This very inquiry violates the First Amendment
guarantees of religious autonomy, denominational neutrality and avoidance of
excessive entanglement of government with religion,” the Catholic colleges
argue.

Since 2011—well before the Obama administration’s HHS mandate
fueled national concern for the constitutional rights of religious
organizations—The Cardinal Newman Society has vocally opposed the NLRB’s
attempts to measure the religious character of religious institutions.

“For two decades, The Cardinal Newman Society has advocated
stronger Catholic identity in Catholic schools and colleges, and we agree that
many of the historically religious colleges targeted by the NLRB could do much
more to provide a faithful education,” said Patrick Reilly, president of The
Cardinal Newman Society. “But no federal agency has the constitutional
authority to make any judgment about the strength of religious instruction, and
then to multiply its violations of the First Amendment by regulating employee
policies that necessarily involve religious questions.”

ThePacific Justice Institute, as part of the Privacy for All
Students coalition, has filed suit challenging the disqualification of more
than 131,000 signatures for the referendum efforts against the Co-ed Bathroom
Bill. The suit asserts that thousands of signatures—including that of a PJI
attorney and more than enough to place the referendum on the ballot—were
unlawfully thrown out by election officials.

Brad Dacus, a frequent Faith on Trial guest and president of PJI, said,
"It's unfortunate when the Secretary of State and other election officials
in their official capacity treat a referendum effort as a partisan debate. It
is not. It's about letting the voice of the people be heard. We want to make
sure every signature is counted, and every voice is heard."

The suit seeks to have the Secretary of State Debra Bowen certify the
referendum for the November 2014 ballot. It notes that election officials have
unlawfully disqualified signatures, causing thousands of voters to be
disenfranchised.

This isn't the first time that
relief had to be sought in the courts against Bowen. In December, Pacific
Justice was part of the legal team that filed suit against Bowen for
refusing to count any of the signatures in two counties claiming that they
arrived after the deadline. Judge Allen Sumner ordered that the signatures from
the two counties be counted.

One of the signatures currently disqualified one is that of PJI Attorney
Matthew McReynolds. The reasoning was based on the fact that his signature did
not match a prior one on file—something plausible as McReynolds has become
blind over the last few years.

AB 1266, the law these referendum efforts seek to overturn, would require all
public schools in California to allow self-identified transgender students to
choose the bathrooms and locker rooms they want to use, as well as the sports
teams they want to join, regardless of their anatomical sex or objections by
others.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

In response to recent attacks on the religious freedom of Christian cadets
at the Air Force Academy, the Restore Military Religious Freedom Coalition has
posted a billboard near the Academy supporting the religious freedom of
Christian cadets.

The billboard asks, Air Force cadets, “Are you free to say so help me God?
They did” against a background of the four presidents carved on Mount Rushmore.

The sign’s message relates to the removal of the phrase "so help me
God" from the official cadet handbook as well as the recent removal of a
Bible verse from a cadet’s personal whiteboard.

Concerning the recent affronts to religious freedom, Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Jerry
Boykin, Executive Vice President of the Family Research Council (FRC) and
former Faith on Trial guest, stated: "Christian cadets at the Air Force
Academy have the constitutional right to express their individual faith. If
such faith scares faculty at the Academy, then it is unlikely they will be very
effective when confronted by a committed enemy who is willing to die for his or
her beliefs.”

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of The Thomas More Law Center
added, “We’ve all heard the adage, ‘There are no atheists in foxholes.’
That’s because the history of our nation evidences the fact that in the end
victory depends on the spirit of our soldiers, not on the sophistication of our
war machines. As General George S. Patton, one of America’s greatest
battlefield generals once declared, ‘Wars might be fought with weapons, but
they are won by men. It is the spirit of the men who leads that gains the
victory.’”

Other events at the Air Force Academy have also indicated a hostile
attitude toward Christians in the Air Force Academy including preferred
treatment of an event sponsored by an Academy Atheists club, which led
conservative commentator Todd Starnes to wonder, “if those in charge of the Air
Force Academy believe the only good cadets are godless cadets.”

Unfortunately, the anti-Christian hostilities at the Air Force Academy are
part of what Rev. Franklin Graham called a move “to completely secularize our
military.” The Military Religious Freedom Coalition listed a series of affronts
to Christian Religious Freedom in the Military in their report “A Clear and Present Danger.”

Mersino observed, “There was a division amongst the Court. Justice Kagan
was clearly advocating to uphold the Mandate, while Justices Scalia, Roberts,
and Alito recognized how the Mandate violated the plaintiffs’ freedom of
religion.”

Continued Mersino, “But based on comments of the various Justices, and
particularly, Justice Kennedy, I am hopeful that religious freedom will prevail
with the majority of the Court. The government argued that the Mandate was
necessary but never supported why the Mandate was a necessity—this is because
it is not. There are a number of alternatives available to the government
which would not involve stripping people of their religious freedom.”

The arguments in these historic cases on religious freedom, lasted for
approximately 90 minutes.

Hobby Lobby and Conestoga were represented by attorney Paul Clement who
responded to questions from the Justices ranging from vaccinations and blood
transfusions to what other options were available for the employers and
employees. The argument also highlighted that millions of companies were
already given exemptions from the Mandate, such as non-profit
corporations and other similarly situated for-profit corporations, without
hesitation, thus making it more suspect why people such as the plaintiffs could
not, also, be granted an exemption.

Arguments for the HHS Mandate were presented by Solicitor General Donald
Verilli whose position that the government has a compelling interest in forcing
employers to pay for morally objectionable contraceptives was weakened by a
discussion of the many exemptions to the HHS Mandate that have been offered. The
HHS Mandate requires employers to provide employee health insurance plans which
include abortion-causing forms of birth control, despite religious objection,
or submit to draconian fines.

Mersino has filed 11 federal lawsuits challenging the HHS Mandate and also
submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court supporting Hobby Lobby and
Conestoga’s position that the HHS Mandate represents a violation of religious
liberty under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
(RFRA).

Mersino observed in a brief analysis of the arguments that, “The argument began
with Justice Sotomayor cutting off Paul Clement during the introduction of his
argument and asking a hypothetical question about a future plaintiff
potentially holding a religious objection to providing vaccinations. This
was beyond the facts posed by the case before the court; however later in the
argument, Justice Alito stated that there was already federal funding in place
for employees who needed the vaccinations of which Justice Sotomayor
complained.”

Mersino continued, “The most disturbing comment from the Court came from
Justice Kagan. The Justice advocated the idea that the plaintiffs pay
multi-millions in tax penalties by not offering any insurance to their
employees because the plaintiffs could save more money by increasing employee
wages and paying the millions in tax penalties over the cost of
insurance. The Justice claimed that this could be a financial ‘wash’ for
the plaintiffs. This argument displayed Justice Kagan’s lack of any
experience in the business world and a misunderstanding of plaintiffs’
religious beliefs. The plaintiffs feel obligated to take care of their
employees. Forcing plaintiffs to forego insurance for their employees not
only would devastate their business and take away any competitive advantage in
maintaining employees who seek health insurance from their employer, it would
also force the plaintiffs into the grave moral dilemma of cancelling health
care for all of their employees. Surely, if political differences could
be put aside, this would not be the desired outcome of any Supreme Court
Justice.”

Many court observers share Mersino’s view that the outcome will hinge on
Justice Kennedy. Concerning the possible outcome of the arguments, Mersino
is hopeful, saying, “I believe that the ultimate decision will come down to
Justice Kennedy. I am hopeful that he will recognize that the Mandate is
the government forcing individuals to violate their sincerely held religious
beliefs or pay millions of dollars in penalties. The issue really is that
simple. Further, the Mandate was not a decision made not by any act of
Congress. The Mandate, instead, is the product of a government appointee
from the Obama Administration, which has never been the subject of a legislative
vote. Should a presidential appointee be allowed to dictate what
religious values and beliefs Americans can hold and practice?”

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Cardinal Raymond Burke, Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal
of the Apostolic Signatura and the former Archbishop of St. Louis, on President
Obama’s policies against religious freedom:

“It is true that the policies of the president of the
United States have become progressively more hostile toward Christian
civilization. He appears to be a totally secularized man who aggressively
promotes anti-life and anti-family policies.

“Now [Obama] wants to restrict the exercise of the
freedom of religion to freedom of worship, that is, he holds that one is free
to act according to his conscience within the confines of his place of worship
but that, once the person leaves the place of worship, the government can
constrain him to act against his rightly-formed conscience, even in the most
serious of moral questions. Such policies would have been unimaginable in the
United States even 40 years ago.

“It is my hope that more and more of my fellow citizens,
as they realize what is happening, will insist on electing leaders who respect
the truth of the moral law as it is respected in the founding principles of our
nation.”

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the landmark case Sebelius
v. Hobby Lobby, determining whether individuals lose their religious freedom
when they open a family business.

At issue is the Health and Human Service
(HHS) Mandate which requires David and Barbara Green and their family business
Hobby Lobby to provide and facilitate four potential life-terminating drugs and
devices in their health insurance plan, against their religious convictions, or
pay severe fines to the IRS.

“Our family started Hobby Lobby built on our
faith and together as a family. We’ve kept that tradition for more than
forty years and we want to continue to live out our faith in the way we do
business,” said Barbara Green, co-founder of Hobby
Lobby.“The choice that the government has forced on us is out
of step with the history of our great nation founded on religious
freedom. We believe that no American should lose their religious freedom
just because they open a family business. We are thankful that the
Supreme Court has heard our case, and we prayerfully await the justices’
decision.”

Founded in an Oklahoma City garage in 1972,
the Green family has grown Hobby Lobby from one 300-square-foot retail space
into more than 500 stores in over 40 states. Devout Christians, the Green
family believes that “it is by God’s grace and provision that Hobby Lobby has
endured” and seek to run their company “in a manner consistent with Biblical
principles.” This includes closing on Sundays and generous treatment of
their employees with full-time hourly workers starting at 90 percent above the
federal minimum wage. The Greens and their family businesses have no moral
objection to providing 16 of the 20 FDA-approved contraceptives under the HHS
mandate, and will continue to provide a broad range of contraceptives at no
additional cost to their employees.

“No one should be forced to give up their
constitutionally protected civil rights just to open a family business,” said Lori Windham, Senior Counsel for The Becket Fund for ReligiousLiberty and counsel for Hobby Lobby.“This case
demonstrates in no uncertain terms that the government’s efforts to strip this
family business of its religious rights represent a gross violation of the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First Amendment.”

In court former
United States Solicitor General Paul Clementargued on behalf of
Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, two family businesses whose cases were consolidated
before the court. Clement argued that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga are protected
under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and that nothing in the law
excludes these family businesses and their owners from religious freedom
protections.

The Court is expected to rule on the case
before the end of its current term in June.

Sunday, March 23, 2014

Something different on this week’s Faith on Trial: We’re going to be
discussing a case ﻿

Brett Harvey

before the Canadian Supreme Court which may have an impact on
religious freedom in the United States.

In July 2008, the Quebec government
introduced a new program, “Ethics and Religious Culture,” which requires all
public and private schools to present all religions, including Wicca and pagan
rites, as equally valid.The program
also prohibits teachers from expressing a preference for any particular faith,
even at a private religious school.

A Jesuit high school had asked for
an exemption from the government which was refused.The case is now headed to Canada’s top court.

Joining us Tuesday to discuss this
case will be Brett Harvey, senior
counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom at its headquarters in Scottsdale,
Arizona. Harvey has assisted state and local governments on issues involving
public invocations, and he has successfully represented clients defending First
Amendment rights, as well as the right to life.

Join Deacon Mike Manno and co-host
Gina Noll Tuesday morning live at 9 (CDT) or the re-broadcast at 9 p.m. on Iowa
Catholic Radio 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM.Both programs will stream live on IowaCatholicRadio.com.

Last
year’s successful Iowa Catholic Men’s Conference, sparked not only the second
annual day of inspiration, prayer and fellowship for men, but branches out to
couples, parents and teens. The conference planners recognize the need for
‘family catechises’ so they contracted their speakers to talk at separate
events and audiences while in the Des Moines area.

“Although focused on men’s spirituality, we are dedicated to faith-fill
families. We decided that we could leverage our great speakers by contracting them
to speak at other varied faith events in the area. This is a great opportunity
for parents and teens to hear from national catholic speakers on topics that
affect them.” said Deacon Tom Bradley. “We are not a ‘one trick pony’, we
understand that men have spouses and children who form a family of faith. We
have coordinated with Diocesan staff to create unique opportunities. We hope
you’ll be inspired by their faith journey and take up the invitation to reflect
on God’s plan for your family.”

Conference speakers sharing will be at these additional events:

Dr. Marcellino D’Ambrosio, director of The Crossroads
Initiative, is speaking to parents/couples on “Keeping Your Kids
Catholic”, Friday, March 28th at Sacred Heart in West Des Moines. Program
is 7 to 8:30pm. Child care available. Admission is free.

Mario St. Francis, in addition to emceeing our
conference Spanish language tract, will speak to students at Dowling
Catholic High School on the afternoon of Friday, March 28th on his story
“A fashion model becomes a model for Christ”.

Matt Fradd, an experienced Catholic apologist, will
speak to teens, young adults and parents on “Shattering the Five Myths
About Pornography”. This free event is 1:00pm Sunday, March 30th in the
Dowling Catholic High School cafeteria. Pizza will be served prior,
starting at 2:30.

Saturday, March 22, 2014

The Santa Barbara
district attorney filed charges of
grand theft, battery, and vandalism Friday against
Professor Mireille Miller-Young for violence she committed against young
pro-life activists who held a peaceful outreach on the UC Santa Barbara campus March
4th.

Tuesday
our program guest was Joan Short, one of the pro-life volunteers whose sign was
stolen. Joan and others were handing out pro-life literature in what was
designated by the university as a free speech zone.

The
professor claimed that she set a good example when she attempted to incite
students to violence and initiated the theft of the sign.

The
pro-life student group sponsoring the event said it hopes that the University
of California at Santa Barbara – where Professor Miller-Young is employed –
will remove her from any position of authority.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Remember the nuns we had in grammar school? I’m sure for
most of us they were not like this one.She
is Sister Cristina Scuccia, 25, and a member of the Ursuline Sisters of the
Holy Family in Italy. Here she is appearing on “The voice of Italy” the Italian
version of “American Idol.”You don’t
have to understand Italian to know what is going on.

During the program the judges have their backs turned to
the performer then turn around when they like what they hear. You can see the visible
astonishment on their faces as they saw that the performer was a young nun. The
way the program runs, after the judges approve the performer, the performer
then chooses one of the judges’ teams to be on for the rest of the
contest.Sr. Cristina chose J-Ax’s team
because he was the first judge to turn around.

The largest ovation from the audience came when one of
the judges, singer Raffaella Carra, asked Sr. Cristina if she was a real nun
and why she was doing this.

“Yes, I am truly,
truly a sister,” she replied. “I came here because I have a gift and I want to
share that gift. I am here to evangelize.”

A federal jury in Greenville, N.C. found Thursday that the University of North
Carolina

Professor Adams

–Wilmington retaliated against one of its professors for his religious views.

We covered this story on Tuesday’s edition of
Faith on Trial.

The professor, Dr. Mike Adams, a former
atheist, had frequently received accolades from his colleagues after the
university hired him as an assistant professor in 1993 and promoted him to
associate professor in 1998. His conversion to Christianity in 2000 impacted
his views on political and social issues. Subsequently, the university
subjected Adams to a campaign of academic persecution that culminated in his
denial of promotion to full professor, despite an award-winning record of
teaching, research, and service.

“We are grateful that the
jury today reaffirmed the fundamental principle that universities are a
marketplace of ideas, not a place where professors face retaliation for having
a different view than university officials,” said Alliance Defending Freedom litigation
staff counsel Travis Barham. “As the jury decided, disagreeing with an accomplished
professor’s religious and political views is no grounds for denying him a
promotion.”

“The jury saw what we have long known to be true about the wrong done to Dr.
Adams,” said senior legal counsel David Hacker. “The verdict is a powerful message
for academic freedom and free speech at America’s public universities.”

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

OTTAWA,
Ontario — An Alliance Defending Freedom allied attorney filed a brief last week with the Supreme Court of Canada in defense of
a private Catholic high school being forced to teach a government-mandated
ethics and religion course that includes teaching contrary to Catholic belief.

In July 2008, the Quebec government introduced
a new program, “Ethics and Religious Culture,” which it requires to be taught
in all public and private schools. The program presents all religions,
including Wicca and pagan rites, as equally valid. The government is also
prohibiting teachers from expressing a preference for any particular faith,
even at private, religious schools.

“This school does not object to educating students about the diversity of
faiths and what makes each faith distinctive, but the government should not
require a Catholic school to tell its students that the Catholic faith is no
more valid than a myriad of conflicting faith traditions,” added Alliance
Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Brett
Harvey, next week’s guest on Faith on Trial. “All faith-based institutions
must be free to speak and act consistently with their faith,” he said.

Tuesday, March 18, 2014

We had another interesting program this morning
discussing student involvement in campus pro-life activities.Our telephone guest was Joan Short, a junior
at Thomas Aquinas College, who recently made national news when a college
professor stole her pro-life sign and assaulted her sister in the “free speech
zone” at the University of California at Santa Barbara, where the two were part
of a pro-life event (our earlier post contains a video of the episode).Our in-studio guest was Dowling Catholic sophomore
Rachel Pierick who attended the annual March for Life in Washington, DC last January and is a committed pro-life
volunteer.Additionally, we had a
special guest in the studio, Elizabeth Noll, a third-grader at St. Augustin
School and daughter of FOT co-host Gina Noll.Today’s program will be re-broadcast tonight at 9 (CST) on 1150 AM; 88.5
& 94.5 FM and streaming live on IowaCatholicRadio.com.

Monday, March 17, 2014

From our friends at the American Freedom Law Center:As you are probably aware,
there is an ongoing controversy between homosexual activists and the private
sponsors of the St. Patrick’s Day parades in Boston and New York. The
controversy began as far back as 1992 when the South Boston Allied War Veterans
Council, a private association of individuals elected from various veterans
groups which had a permit from the City of Boston to organize and conduct the
St. Patrick’s Day Parade, refused a place in the 1993 event to a homosexual
activist group—the Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston (GLIB)—which was
formed for the purpose of marching in the parade in order to express its
members’ pro-homosexual message—a message that the private sponsors of the
parade did not want conveyed during this family event. (N.B. The
private sponsors did not allow any political messages during the parades).

Refusing to take “no” for an answer, GLIB did what every other
pro-homosexual group does when it doesn’t get its way. It filed a lawsuit
in state court, alleging that the denial of its application to march violated,
inter alia, a state law prohibiting discrimination on account of sexual
orientation in places of public accommodation. Bear in mind, GLIB wasn’t
asserting a constitutional right of any sort as against the government.
GLIB wanted to force a private organization (the Council) to accept its
message and, consequently, the immoral lifestyle of its members. Sound
familiar? Not surprising, the Massachusetts state trial court found such
a violation and ordered the Council to include GLIB in the parade. And
the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (Massachusetts’ version of a state
supreme court, which, by the way, was the first to rule that same-sex
“marriage” was a right as a matter of state constitutional law) affirmed.
Again, no real surprise there.

The case, however, made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. And in
a unanimous 1995 decision delivered by liberal Justice David Souter (Hurley
v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston) the high court
held that the state courts’ application of the Massachusetts public
accommodations law to require private citizens who organize a parade to include
among the marchers a group imparting a message that the organizers do not wish
to convey violates the First Amendment.

So it is that when the Mayors of Boston and New York refuse to march in a
parade because the private parade organizers are exercising their fundamental
right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, these politicians
are taking a stand against freedom (and against morality). And the same
is true for the beer companies (Guinness, Sam Adams, and Heineken) that have
boycotted these events.

Sunday, March 16, 2014

On March 4, Joan Short, a student a Thomas
Aquinas College and a member of a pro-life student group, along with her younger
sister, Thrin, were handing out pro-life literature in a “free speech zone” on
the campus of the University of California Santa Barbara when a professor of feminist
studies approached and took their sign which showed images of aborted babies.The professor also assaulted the younger
sister as she tried to reclaim the poster. The professor took the poster to her
office where she destroyed it; she now faces prosecution for theft and assault.

On Tuesday we will have Joan Short as our guest to tell the story and to urge young people
to become involved in the pro-life movement.In addition, in-studio we will have Dowling Catholic students Abby Dowd and Rachel Pierick, both involved in the pro-life movement who took part
in January’s March for Life in Washington.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national public
interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, MI, stepped-up its legal attack on a
Portland, Maine city ordinance, designed to restrict pro-life speech, by adding
an additional plaintiff and filing a motion yesterday for a preliminary
injunction to immediately stop the enforcement of the City’s ordinance.

At issue is Portland’s Ordinance 17-108 which establishes
a 39-foot “buffer zone” around the City’s only abortion facility.Pro-life counselors are subject to a $100
fine if they enter the 39-foot radius around the facility’s entrances,
including the public sidewalk. Consequently, the ordinance creates a free
speech dead zone which effectively prevents pro-life counselors from
compassionately reaching out to women who are contemplating an abortion or who
have already had one.

The Thomas More
Law Center filed the original federal lawsuit on February 12, 2014, on behalf
of Marguerite and Daniel Fitzgerald, as well as two of their teenaged children.
The Fitzgerald family are Evangelical Christians who have been participating in
pro-life activities outside of the Planned Parenthood clinic for over a year.
The buffer zone prevents them from engaging in pro-life activities motivated by
their religious belief that abortion is the deliberate destruction of innocent
human life.

The newly added
plaintiff, Leslie Sneddon, has engaged in sidewalk counseling at the abortion
facility for over a year.The compelling
and compassionate reasons for her actions as a sidewalk counselor are revealed
to the court in an affidavit:She had
four abortions and now feels compelled to peacefully counsel other women
against making the same life-altering, life-ending decisions she made. She
understands what they are feeling and why they are contemplating abortion.She attempts to counsel them so they may
choose life for their baby. However, with the 39-foot buffer zone she can no
longer have an intimate, more private conversation.

TMLC Senior Trial
Attorney Erin Mersino, a frequent guest on FOT, one of the attorneys handling
the case, commented: “One of the saddest parts of this case is that Leslie who
has had four abortions herself and wishes to help other post-abortive women
through gentle conversation and discussion of counseling options can no longer
do so.The so-called ‘buffer zone’ makes
this impossible as our client is forced to stand across a busy city street, and
yell to have her message heard.In her
case, the ‘buffer zone’ has made her efforts to help women, for whom she shares
a great deal of empathy, unlawful.”

Monday, March 10, 2014

A federal court Friday struck down the entirety of a
Maryland county’s law that forced pro-life pregnancy counselors to advise women
against using their services. The court’s order prohibits the Montgomery County
law from being enforced.

The ruling is another positive sign in the nationwide battle against such
ordinances. Other lawsuits are currently taking place in Baltimore, New York
City, San Francisco, and Austin, Texas.

“Pregnancy centers, which offer real help and hope to women, shouldn’t be
punished by political allies of abortion sellers,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman, co-counsel in the case. “The court
rightly found no justification whatsoever for the government to force pro-life
centers to speak a message designed to drive women away. The government cannot
resort to coercing or shutting down someone else’s speech in violation of the
First Amendment in order to achieve its political goals.”

The Montgomery County law forced “limited-service pregnancy centers” and
individuals who have a “primary purpose” of offering information about
pregnancy to post signage noting that a medical professional is not on staff
and that the county health department advises them to speak with a licensed
medical professional. The county intentionally crafted the law so that it
doesn’t apply to pro-abortion centers, such as Planned Parenthood, even if
counseling is offered there by non-medical persons.

The opinion of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland issued in Centro
Tepeyac v. Montgomery County explained that “the critical flaw for the
County is the lack of any evidence that the practices of [the pregnancy care
centers] are causing pregnant women to be misinformed which is negatively
affecting their health,” adding that “when core First Amendment interests are
implicated, mere intuition [of a problem] is not sufficient. Yet that is all
the County has brought forth: intuition and suppositions.”

The opinion further explained that the only people who alleged a
“misinformation problem” on the part of pregnancy care centers “were
universally volunteers from a pro-choice organization sent to investigate
[their] practices.” Despite those allegations, “there is no evidence that those
women failed to get the medical services and counseling they desired or that
the time spent at the [centers] was to the detriment of their health,” the
court concluded.

Tuesday morning we will take up the issues surrounding
Gov. Jan Brewer’s veto of SB 1062, the bill that reportedly would have either allowed
citizens to legally discriminate against certain groups or would have protected
the conscience of businessmen.Joining
us for that discussion is an independent writer and journalist Dexter Duggan
who has followed Arizona politics for many years and is a frequent contributor
to numerous publications including the national Catholic weekly, The Wanderer.

Join us Tuesday at 9 a.m. (CDT) – rebroadcast at 9 p.m. –
on Iowa Catholic Radio for a discussion of these and other issues of interest
to people of faith. Faith on Trial is
heard on 1150 AM, 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streams live on IowaCatholicRadio.com
every Tuesday at 9 & 9.

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

In July 2012, members
of Cowboys for Life at Oklahoma State University sought to reserve space for pro-life
displays near the Student Union, a highly traveled area of campus that student
groups regularly use for such events. OSU officials denied the club’s request
because, the officials claimed, the displays might offend some people. Instead,
the university relegated the displays to a less-traveled area of campus and
then required Cowboys for Life to place “warning” signs around the displays.

When members of the
group tried to distribute literature near the Student Union, OSU officials
ordered the students to leave the area or post additional “warning” signs.
After the event, officials coordinated and launched an investigation that
claimed the students had violated the Student Code of Conduct.

Last year, on behalf
of the students involved, the Alliance Defending Freedom filed a federal
lawsuit against the university after officials there took numerous actions to
impede and disrupt the group’s pro-life displays on campus.

Travis Barham

The university has now agreed to a settlement which
means pro-life student groups will no longer face disruption of their pro-life
events and displays at Oklahoma State University.

“Universities should
promote the free exchange of ideas, not exile views they don’t like to isolated
places on campus,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Litigation Staff Counsel
Travis Barham. “This settlement ensures that Oklahoma State officials will not
have free reign to censor students.”

As part of the settlement, OSU agreed to update its policies and practices to
respect students’ constitutionally protected freedom of expression and will
treat Cowboys for Life the same as all other recognized student organizations.
OSU also officially rescinded any verbal warnings against the group, made clear
that the group no longer faces any investigations for supposedly violating the
Student Code of Conduct, and paid for the group’s attorneys’ fees.

Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Association that the Romeike family
is being granted indefinite deferred action status.

The Department told HSLDA that this
meant the order of removal would not be acted on and that the Romeikes could
stay. Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a denial of the Romeike family’s
petition for certiorari to overturn a lower court’s decision to deny the family
asylum in the U. S. sparking an immediate and unprecedented reaction.

HSLDA Chairman Michael Farris was
thrilled.

“This is an incredible victory that
I can only credit to Almighty God. I also want to thank those who spoke up on
this issue—including that long ago White House petition. We believe that the
public outcry made a huge impact. What an amazing turnaround—in just 24 hours,”
he said.

Uwe Romeike said he is extremely
grateful for the support and welcome he has received from America.“Our entire family is deeply grateful for all
the support of our friends and fellow homeschoolers and especially HSLDA. I
thank God for his hand of blessing and protection over our family. We thank the
American government for allowing us to stay here and to peacefully homeschool
our children—it’s all we ever wanted.”

HSLDA Director of International
Affairs Mike Donnelly pointed out that the only reason the Romeikes had to come
to America was because of Germany’s repressive policy towards homeschoolers.

“Germany’s persecution of
homeschooling parents continues and is one reason, I suspect, that DHS was
willing to grant the family indefinite status,” Donnelly said. “How could our
country send this loving peaceful family back to be crushed by outrageous
fines, criminal prosecution, and the loss of their children? Today Germany is
holding another family prisoner only because they wanted to leave to go to
France to homeschool their children. How could we send the Romeikes back to be
treated like that?”

Donnelly continued, “HSLDA is
determined to continue working in support of beleaguered homeschooling families
in Germany and other countries. The right of parents to decide how their
children should be educated is a fundamental human right. The United States got
it right in this case, and we call on Germany to change its policy so that
parents in Germany can homeschool their children in peace.”

On the program today we discussed how this particular
pro-life pregnancy clinics work and I promised to post the contact information
for our local center – I serve on the board of directors and this clinic is
both pro-life and pro-woman. There is also a link to the clinic’s web page:

Monday, March 3, 2014

Last October we brought you
the story of a German family that had sought asylum in the United States so
that they could home school their children, something that is unlawful in Germany.Despite an initial ruling that granted the
family asylum, the Obama Administration fought the ruling and last year the 6th
Circuit Court of Appeals denied the asylum request.

Today the Supreme Court
refused to hear the family’s appeal. Barring action by Congress, the family
will be returned to Germany.

“Today, the United States
Supreme Court declined to review Uwe and Hannelore Romeike’s asylum case. We
knew it was an uphill battle since the Court only accepts 80–100 out of nearly
10,000 requests each year. While we are disappointed, the court’s decision in
no way changes our commitment to fight for the Romeikes and homeschooling
freedom. The court’s decision is not a decision on the merits of the case—however,
it was the last judicial hope for the family.

“But we will not give up and
see this family returned to Germany where they will face certain persecution.
Even now, we have been working with supportive members of Congress to introduce
legislation that could help the Romeikes and others who flee persecution. We
will keep you informed as the legislation progresses. We will undoubtedly need
your help at the right time. Although our judicial efforts on behalf of this
courageous family are over for now, we are resolved to fight on for them and
homeschooling freedom.”

Pages

Faith on Trial is where we examine the influence of law and society on Christianity. Here we will look at those cases and events that impinge on the rights of Christians to fully practice their faith. Join us every Tuesday morning at 9 or listen to our re-broadcast Tuesday evening at 9 (Central). The program can be heard on IowaCatholic Radio: 1150 AM; 88.5 & 94.5 FM and streaming on iowacatholicradio.com. Host is Attorney and Deacon Mike Manno.